pjkundert

[flagged]

[flagged]

Naturally (for the “new” HN), this post will be downvoted or banned, but…

How could an intelligent person agree that eliminating a market price for critical supplies would be the best course of action?

I’m legitimately asking. How does eliminating any sane supplier of legal critical supplies to a disaster zone make sense?

Instead of being able to see the line of suppliers from (literally) orbit, you want no supplies.

It’s as close to clinically insane as I can imagine…

Real utility bills of real citizens have doubled. All the associated taxes, delivery fees, etc. are clearly not included, or they’ve used substitution to alter the baseline basket they’re using to compute the metric (a common tactic).

Ask 10 citizens who own/rent the same property what their utility bill was a decade ago.

You’re being gaslighted.

In Canada, consumer prices across every expense category have roughly doubled over the last 9 years, implying an annual inflation rate of 8%.

Anyone with a calculator and the “Rule of 72” can independently verify this as fact.

That every government mouthpiece intones the party dogma doesn’t change this fact.

Your government is lying to you.

“… security precautions, largely to prevent bad actors from stealing the weights (and thereby disabling our safeguards) for a model that is capable of enabling extremely harmful actions. ”

They’re not stealing your “weights”. They’re stealing (or parallel-discovering) your training algorithms.

Assume your enemies are smarter than you, and have malintent. They don’t give a shit about your security and your safeguards.

Better focus on developing the best AIs, and deploying them to your fellow citizens as widely and defensively as possible.

Might I suggest:

- don’t teach them to lie (ie. 2001)

- teach them to love people

- bake in Asimov’s 3 laws

Unfortunately, all of these tenets are currently being assiduously broken by all major AI trainers.

What could go wrong?

I recommend you don’t commit suicide based on claims that have 100% predictive failure.

But, that’s just me…

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”"

Matt 26:26

Incorrect.

They were denied because they had not yet provided coverage in the area (years before they were required to, under the contract).

As FCC's Commissioner Brendan Carr wrote:

“Instead of applying the traditional FCC standard to the record evidence, which would have compelled the agency to confirm Starlink’s $885 million award, the FCC denied it on the grounds that Starlink is not providing high-speed Internet service to all of those locations today.”

“What? FCC law does not require Starlink to provide high-speed Internet service to even a single location today. As noted above, the first FCC milestone does not kick in until the end of 2025. Indeed, the FCC did not require—and has never required—any other award winner to show that it met its service obligation years ahead of time.”